A discussion site for folks interested in improving the quality of medical laboratories. Most will be the thoughts and vents of a long time player in the medical laboratory quality from many perspectives, complex and basic laboratories, developed and developing countries, research and new knowledge.

Featured Post

Healthcare Customer Satisfaction: More Talk AND More Action Customer satisfaction (Voice of the customer) is a recurrent th...

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

The Future of Proficiency Testing

In
1946 Sunderman learned the hard way that medical laboratories in Pennsylvania
were not meeting their customers’ needs.This was about 25 years before Crosby and his ground breaking definition of Quality (meeting customer requirements), but Sunderman understood that if clinicians felt compelled to send samples to
multiple laboratories to get enough answers to collect and mean, then the
laboratories were probably not generating credible values.

In order to sort out what was going on, he and his coinvestigator created a bunch of simulated samples and set them to the laboratories for testing. Unfortunately
what he discovered was that the clinicians were right, the laboratories were
wrong and the laboratory information was crap strongly resembling a grand scale scattergram. What
followed was the development of a formalized Proficiency Testing scheme which eventually spread
around the world.

That was a good thing
because it introduced a new level of Quality assessment that has benefited
laboratories greatly by making the processes of sample examination more rigorous
and standardized.

But
the world does not stand still and medical laboratory sample examination has
become mechanized and computerized and quality controlled to the point that the
machines are rarely wrong, and when they are they are smart enough to shut down
reducing the risks of machine error.So
Proficiency Testing especially for machine generated laboratory data has become
arguably redundant.

Proficiency Testing
for machine generated data has become a statistical exercise looking at things
like bias and uncertainty, neither of which has much to do with laboratory proficiency
and competence.

That
does not mean that there are no more laboratory errors; indeed there continue to lots of
errors, most of which are the consequence of human foible such as some distraction,
some mistake, some procedure or protocol error.

And I strongly argue that human foible should be the focus of attention for
Proficiency Testing going forward.

When
we look at laboratory error, what we regularly see is that most reported errors
are in the pre-examination phase, poor samples, wrong samples, insufficiency
samples, contaminated samples.In the
examination phase we should be looking at least as closely at how the Quality
Control was done as the testing outcome.And in the post-examination phase we should be looking at things like
what kind of report was created and how it was generated and to whom it was
sent. And there are other areas of focus including Quality Management procedures and Safety procedures and Transport procedures and Autoclaving practices.

All
these issues can easily be tested by Proficiency Testing methods.In some situations they will be different
from the traditional methods. That is where the innovation and creativity
becomes part of the play.

So
here is my warning:Keep doing what we
always do and Proficiency Testing will become progressively less relevant and
more inappropriate and just plain irrelevant and wrong.